He couldn't kill Lanfear...look what that got. If he could redo the scene he still wouldn't be able to kill her.

I'm not disputing that his attitude causes problems. But wasn't your original argument that Rand is the most sexist because of his list? I'm just saying, that list isn't sexism, it's insanity.

 

Remember, also, that Rand did kill a female Darkfriend in TDR. Rather brutally, I might add. Killing someone you've been raised to protect probably helped put him over the edge, but the fact that he did kill her supports the idea that Rand's obsession with protecting women didn't reach dangerous levels until after his problems started.

No no no. I'm don't mean Rand is necessarily more sexist than the others, just that since he has so much power, it has greater effects on peoples' lives (not to mention he's ta'veren too).

If Colavere had been a man, she most definitely would have gotten death penalty. It's to the point where he lets his feelings obstruct justice.

I'm not a fan of inconsistency, but I'm also not a fan of the death penalty. At least Colavaere could have done some good if she was working on a farm. It isn't right that he sentences men to death and not women, but in this case, I'd call that being sexist against men, not against women.

 

It's possible that I'm forgetting some examples that would completely contradict what I'm about to say, but it seems like after his abduction, Rand has been less protective of at least women who can channel (though not the Maidens). I'm thinking of the Aes Sedai who captured and tortured Rand. Perrin wanted to treat them mercifully, gently even. He didn't want to hand them over to the Wise Ones because he was afraid the Wise Ones would mistreat them. Rand, on the other hand, let the Wise Ones do pretty much whatever they wanted to.

I'm not talking about whether the death penalty was suitable or not. My only point here is that he wouldn't have her killed just because she was a woman. Whatever the law is, it should at least apply equally to all people.

==========================================================================================

I know a lot of people brought up that Randland is more like the 17th century than modern times, and it doesn't make sense to compare their attitudes with contemporary ones. So I do concede that that's a valid point.

I'm not getting on Rand's case more than everyone else's just because he may be more sexist than the next guy/gal. (Believe it or not, my heart does go out to the poor guy.) The thing is that even if others believe as he does, they don't have the kind of power he has. It's one thing to feel a greater pang when a woman dies for him than when a man does, but it becomes very serious when Rand lets his actions follow those feelings.

He couldn't kill Lanfear...look what that got. If he could redo the scene he still wouldn't be able to kill her.

If Colavere had been a man, she most definitely would have gotten death penalty. It's to the point where he lets his feelings obstruct justice.

There are lots of other examples that I can find once Amazon ships me my WoT books.  :)

Granted that the women have their own issues, but none of them are neurotic enough to compare to Rand, with his list of dead women.

None of them have a dead man in their heads, either. He wouldn't have the list at all if it weren't for LTT and the other trauma he's been through. Give the poor, insane guy a break

You're saying give him a break because of all those things he's going through. That I understand, but I don't think everyone else is attributing that "list" to Rand's issues.

More "important"? Give me a break. We protect children and the elderly because they are more vulnerable than adults in their prime years. To put women in the group that needs protection is to say that we are also more vulnerable. And that is an incredibly false generalization. In our world and WoT.

I could be wrong, but I think what they were trying to say is that women were an absolute necessity for a stable society, especially in the WoT world. Infant mortality rates would have been very high, and many women would have died in childbirth. There was no infant formula, so breastfeeding was a necessity. So the protection of women was more for the continuation of society, and not so much because of vulnerability.

 

But, again, I could be wrong

Somehow I doubt "important" refers to: we need the women around so they can have lots of babies.

The article was interesting, but I don't really agree with much of what she says. I understand that Randland is sexist in not just one direction. I don't condone the situation in Ebou Dar or Far Madding either. 

Granted that the women have their own issues, but none of them are neurotic enough to compare to Rand, with his list of dead women.

One other thing to throw in here, but the Two Rivers view of protecting women isn't unique. You have the exact same attitude in Fal Dara, and from some of the things in New Spring I'd say Malkier was the same.  It's called chivalry, and it's something that many men even to this day try to practice in some way. It has nothing to do with feeling that women are inferior. It has to do with feeling that women are so important that making sure they are protected should be the first priority.

More "important"? Give me a break. We protect children and the elderly because they are more vulnerable than adults in their prime years. To put women in the group that needs protection is to say that we are also more vulnerable. And that is an incredibly false generalization. In our world and WoT.

Call it "chivalry" if you want, sexism is sexism. There is nothing a man can do that a woman cannot. The attitute that men should protect women is incredibly 17th century, and it sickens me to see that certain people still want to follow it. For all the guys out there who agree with Rand's notion to some degree, would you not feel insulted if some group of people out there wanted to protect you especially because they thought you were weaker? Whatever happened to equality?

Now that some people have metioned it, most of the Randland characters are pretty sexist, both the women and men. In fact, I cannot think of one major character off the top of my head who seems to believe in complete equality for men and women. I'm hoping RJ doesn't take his characters' views...

I don't know how to properly quote a quote,

but AMEN to everything Zardi said at the top of page 2!

definition

sexism (n) discrimination based on gender

Yeah...that's pretty discriminatory if one would cringe from killing a woman more than they would cringe from killing a man.

Why is Rand so ridiculously sexist?  ??? That whole list of women whose deaths he blames himself for is way overkill. I don't understand why he feels worse for the death of a darkfriend woman than for a loyal Aielman who died for him. It just makes no sense that he can't kill a woman but can kill a man. It's driving me nuts...if it was just Rand I could attribute it to a thick skull, but Perrin and Mat seem to harbor the same feelings! Does anyone understand that whole "worse to kill a woman" thing? It just seems so fake to me. How dare he base his level of guilt for a death on gender!  >:(

It's almost insulting, as if he believes the woman did not stand as good of a chance. The Maidens seem to get a tad frustrated with this, but they don't sweat over it. If anyone can possibly explain Rand's attitude, please do, because my brain will soon turn to mush fuming over it.